"Without democracy there is no freedom. Violence, no matter who is using it, is always reactionary"

Friedrich Ebert’s assertion that freedom is inseparable from democracy points to a foundational principle of modern governance: that individual liberties rely on the structures and participation guaranteed by democratic systems. When a society lacks democratic institutions, mechanisms for representation, free expression, and accountability, the landscape for personal freedom shrinks. Authoritarian regimes and dictatorships often claim to deliver order or even uphold certain rights, but without genuine democratic engagement and public oversight, freedoms are easily curtailed or manipulated according to the interests of the ruling class. Ebert, as Germany’s first democratically elected president, witnessed the dangers of autocracy and social upheaval and understood that only through democracy can the rights and dignity of individuals be protected from arbitrary rule.

His condemnation of violence, irrespective of who employs it, underscores a commitment to nonviolent political engagement. Labeling all violence as “always reactionary” suggests that violence is fundamentally a response to existing conditions rather than a creative or constructive force. Even when used as a tool by oppressed groups or in revolutionary contexts, violence tends to replicate cycles of retribution, destabilize societies, and impede the development of institutions where dialogue and compromise can thrive. The resort to violence, Ebert implies, is a symptom of the breakdown of democratic processes, a step backward that hinders the peaceful evolution of society.

Ebert’s perspective connects the ethical foundations of democracy with practical outcomes: free societies can only flourish in environments where disputes are settled by reasoned debate and majority decision, where citizens trust in laws instead of brute force. Thus, the interplay of democracy and nonviolence forms a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Democratic frameworks empower individuals to change their circumstances without bloodshed, while a collective commitment to peaceful action preserves the stability necessary for freedom to endure. Ultimately, Ebert’s message is that achieving and sustaining freedom, both individually and collectively, depends on the maintenance of democratic ideals and the rejection of violence as a political instrument.